March 03, 2010 
We've all heard the story of the five people that witnessed (whatever), were questioned by the police and told five different stories, because they were five different people. Likewise, of the old police car for sale - five men saw it, five men had their own ideas about it and then we are asked if there is one car, or five... or as many cars as there are people, that see it.
It's the same with every image you show. There are as many images in that one image as there are people, that notice that image. No two people will evaluate that image in the same manner because no two people share the exact same values, concerning images.
One man's garbage, is another man's gold.
Once I said, "There are no absolutes." Then I realized I had concocted a classic non-sequiteur! Now I say there is but one absolute - one thing known by all and with which none, will disagree: I AM.
1 + 1 = 2. Absolute... right? No deviation is possible... or, is it?
When 1 is a quantity of plutonium, equal to or greater than critical mass / 2 and less than critical mass, 1 + 1 = KA-BLOOIE, and 2, well, it never quite happens .) And yes, I know there would not really be an explosion, only a meltdown, but 2 would not happen, just the same.
It would seem that there are two 'schools' of thought - 1) do it by the numbers; follow the rules and 2) just do what you feel; express your self.
Ah, but good and bad are perceptions, and nothing more. Witness, if you will, how those poor, poor men that died while destroying the WTC actually believed what they did was good and so right that they actually gave up their lives, to get it done.
If we are making a certain grade of chromium steel... the result is black or white - we made the exact compound we were after, or we did not. Photography (like all the arts) is not an exact science... the results are always some shade of grey. (pun intended)
When what will be liked and/or accepted varies, and varies greatly with the individual that views the work, how can there be any 'rules?' When I am certainly unable to adopt your likes and dislikes... how can I make something intended to please you?
My answer is simple - perhaps overly so:
I express my self, in everything I make. I realize that is what I am doing - all I am able to do, with any honesty and/or certainty. I make what I like... obviously!
I wonder if any here would care to share their thoughts on this, rather thorny subject? It's OK to bleed a little. As long as progress is the result, taking the thorn was worth it.
What do you do? Do you try to 'do it by the numbers' or do you 'let it all hang out?' Do you follow the rules, or make your own?
I won't say what I do. Go here:
http://www.MageProductions.com
and find out for yourself!
Second try not to get wound up or this thread will end up locked.
So the arguement is why does creativity seem to change, be different between people even though when we're young we all seem to be on the same level? I believe that the 'creative' trait of people is limited because of the expanse of tools that exist -don't use that (which you thought of) use this (the standard) mentality. So, logically, mostly we agree that the standard is more effective -more effecient.
As people, there is too much to be an expert of everything. So we specialize to survive. The community -an evolutionary part of humanity- is built around understanding that specialization is a strength.
Creativity then gets funneled into something. Be it art, tools, skills, some sort of personal innovation. There are no people who lack creativity they have just reached the arguement that they cannot innovate, cannot change their environment- then become less human?
Artisic creativity is something that either exsists, or it doesn't.
Agreed Completely!
Knowledge for the sake of knowledge may indeed be the highest academic pursuit, but that doesn't make it the most IMPORTANT pursuit, IMHO.Like you and I both say, this is our unique opinion, but I disagree with this. Because all knowledge has the ability to produce a change, whether in ourselves or the world around us, I say that knowledge for the sake of knowledge is the most important of things. If only because one can argue, quite successfully, that all knowledge is indeed applied at some level.
I think that the best way we can understand the creative process is to CREATE.
Agree and disagree. Being a psychology PhD student, I feel that everything can be studied and understood at least a pseudo-scientific level. To someone without that "spark", it could be helpful to put that into words, if only for more people having a true appreciation of all art. But, I do agree that to fully understand the creative process one must engage in it.
Trying to quantify that spark with words seems like, to me, kind of a waste of time... time that I think would be better spent looking at the spark that exists in actual work of others, as well as creating on our own.Just the act of looking for/at the spark and trying to see either what the artist saw or what you see itself could be called quantifying it. And as I stated earlier, if that spark can be better understood by others without such a spark, then we could possibly widen the influence of art and the appreciation of it as well. This is obviously conjecture, but it could help the current state of art programs and the like.
And, as always, just because I have an opinion doesn't mean I am right...Same here! :)
The question of what is percieved as creative by most people is an interesting psychological question.
That said I agree there isn't much new said in this thread yet.
Dani.
I agree completely! I don't feel that knowledge, unless applied, is useless, which, from what I can read, is what Sabbath is saying. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is the highest of academic pursuits IMO. Of course, I am biased, as we all are.
So many words, not enough substance, but a lot of bloviation.
OR, to much acid back in the day.
Why?
Because the entire though process doesn't help you one dad-gum bit. There is no way that playing some intellectual word game will take somebody with limited creativity and turn him into Hieronymus Bosch or Salvador Dali.
The role of discussing creativity is not just to find methods for making someone creative, just like sociology and philosophy of science is not for the sake of improving science.
The question of what is percieved as creative by most people is an interesting psychological question.
That said I agree there isn't much new said in this thread yet.
Dani.
Simple reasoning - you might try it, sometime, before insulting me (or anyone else) and (potentially) making an enemy, in the process.
The most common error, here or anywhere, is to assume that others are like yourself. We are not. Your accusation speaks of your perception, which certainly is based on the assumption that I am like you because you lack any knowledge of me, whatsoever.
Likewise, your choice to take offense at my description of those poor, poor men. Those men were filled with hatred. Those men lacked the courage to apply their version of what is right and what is wrong as liberally to themselves as they do to others, or preferably more so.
Those men were herd animals, experiencing the horror I call "us and them" thinking, so that they can learn to do better. They were poor, indeed!
Is your choice to take offense not based in the mentality, of the herd? I think it is.
You and I can not communicate. We share nothing.
A wise man makes few enemies. I do not want to make one, of you. Ignore my posts, please. What they contain will not make sense to you until you have lived several, if not many more lifetimes. You are not a bad person. You are where you need to be, doing what you need to do.
God speed.
Bloviation
(Etc...)
My point was that EVEN a three year old has a great deal of creativity. It isn't learned behavior, it comes from within. I was not projecting it on any further, IMHO there is no need to... because it makes no more sense to me to do so that to talk about a philosophy of anger, or hunger, or any other basic part of the core human being... in fact, it makes a lot LESS sense to talk about it.
I can certainly see looking into how to help people tap into their creative core, or seeing how to develop tools that will make that creative core more perfectly expressed, but I think it is as much of a person nature of a person as their hat size. It is what it is.
Turns out it's just an ad to drive traffic to your site, so you can sell prints.
I also take offense at the description of the 911 hijackers as "poor, poor men".
Saw your images, fair enough, not my taste. But we had a recent thread in which a number of us concluded that there is a market for saturated landscapes.
It might be that the "lack of substance" you have referenced invites someone else to contribute...
I have no time for the basal, and the ignorant. They have nothing, at all, for me. So you will be ignored, henceforth. Spew your insults but again, your mind fails, miserably. Being insulted is a choice. You do not control my choices... or anything else. You are powerless, unless I empower you.
Ah, but here I go, again - lol - more bloviation. So bloviated, in fact, that you didn't even hear the sonic boom...
I, for one, is glad he's here. The population of morons really needs new blood.
Since you showed the difference, i will agree completely that a true understanding of the knowledge you hold helps a lot when it comes it working on the more creative side of any art form. Without an understanding of what you learned, you have to agree you can not apply it to anything outside of the form you learned it in.
In math, we can all learn that 2+1 = 3, but without the understanding of addition how can we apply that knowledge to 3+1?
And you stated that in order to be creative you must have this understanding of the original knowledge, be it conscious or sub-conscious.
so therefore, going back to your original question, wouldn't one have to both withhold the understanding of the basics or the "numbers", and let it "all hang out" in order to be creative and do something outside of the norm?
--off topic--
I am taking a phil. class on proper arguing and todays chapter was about organizing the argument.. Found it kind of neat that i could put it into play at that last bit :-) hopefully i understood what i read and got it right
Artisic creativity is something that either exsists, or it doesn't.
Knowledge for the sake of knowledge may indeed be the highest academic pursuit, but that doesn't make it the most IMPORTANT pursuit, IMHO.
I think that the best way we can understand the creative process is to CREATE.
I spend a lot of my time reading and studying art history. I have been buying and watching every college-level DVD course "The Teaching Company" (this isn't an ad, you can google them yourselves) has, and they are giving me an education that I never got in school. I have been learning about the art of western europe, the Dutch masters, the Italian masters, the age of impressionism and much more. I have been studying the paintings as presented, and making trips to every museum I can get to in the midwest to see these works in person.
As much as I enjoy learning about the work, about the stories behind the pictures and the lives of the artists, about the symbolism that is presented and the context in which they were painted, none of this academic study (such as it is) will tell me one little bit about how somebody like Gian Lorenzo Bernini could look at a hunk of marble and see Apollo & Dafne (Click to see statue) (http://www.thais.it/scultura/image/sch00342.htm)... because that is something that is inside of the artist, something that simply cannot be understood or quantified by mere words.
The one thing I have learned above all else by my recent studies in the arts is that there is a "spark" that one has... and some just have a lot more of it than others.
Understanding the spark isn't about words, it is about looking at the work its self and SEEING what the artist saw... even if you would have never seen it without the artists guiding hand.
Trying to quantify that spark with words seems like, to me, kind of a waste of time... time that I think would be better spent looking at the spark that exists in actual work of others, as well as creating on our own.
But that's just me.
And, as always, just because I have an opinion doesn't mean I am right...
What I think you are doing is looking for an absolute answer to an opinionated question. At the beginning, you pointed out that we are all individuals and thus will have different feelings looking at the same piece of art. Which like you said, nobody can disagree because we are all different. So in short, Art for the sake of art can have no guidelines if your intentions are to create for your own pleasure or fulfillment; when creating for a general audience (lets define general as say this forum, or a group of photographers) following guidelines will make it more appealing and more acceptable. If creating art for a non photography experienced person, then certain rules can be overlooked or outweighed by saturation, or a "pretty" scene.
Then again, how could I have expected this? HAHA. You guys are confusing me. Everything is perceptive, end of discussion.
I also take offense at the description of the 911 hijackers as "poor, poor men".
No, dude. Your PERCEPTION of my post is that it is an add... That perception is lacking, in the extreme. If I was to take my time to place adds I seriously doubt I would do it here, where everybody takes their own pics.
Simple reasoning - you might try it, sometime, before insulting me (or anyone else) and (potentially) making an enemy, in the process.
The most common error, here or anywhere, is to assume that others are like yourself. We are not. Your accusation speaks of your perception, which certainly is based on the assumption that I am like you because you lack any knowledge of me, whatsoever.
Likewise, your choice to take offense at my description of those poor, poor men. Those men were filled with hatred. Those men lacked the courage to apply their version of what is right and what is wrong as liberally to themselves as they do to others, or preferably more so.
Those men were herd animals, experiencing the horror I call "us and them" thinking, so that they can learn to do better. They were poor, indeed!
Is your choice to take offense not based in the mentality, of the herd? I think it is.
You and I can not communicate. We share nothing.
A wise man makes few enemies. I do not want to make one, of you. Ignore my posts, please. What they contain will not make sense to you until you have lived several, if not many more lifetimes. You are not a bad person. You are where you need to be, doing what you need to do.
God speed.
This is no surprise. Minds, stimulated to thought, find that they are not up for the challenge. The (rudimentary) ego becomes irritated, and bingo, rude behavior.
It might be that the "lack of substance" you have referenced invites someone else to contribute...
I have no time for the basal, and the ignorant. They have nothing, at all, for me. So you will be ignored, henceforth. Spew your insults but again, your mind fails, miserably. Being insulted is a choice. You do not control my choices... or anything else. You are powerless, unless I empower you.
Ah, but here I go, again - lol - more bloviation. So bloviated, in fact, that you didn't even hear the sonic boom...
Some of the most creative people on the planet are 3 year olds. Perhaps they are not very good at expressing their creativity artistically due to a lack of fine motor skills and training (and the fact that their thumbs are sore from sucking them) but the certainly are quite creative.
Creativity is something we are born with, it is elemental... it exists within the human animal when we are born, and it flows from us throughout life without thought or reason... some more than others.
Ahem... well, how does said 3 year old differ, from an adult? Might the creativity, of which you speak, be the product of that (those) differences?
A 3 year old has yet to receive the colossal beating the world is bound to apply to him/her, in order to convert him/her into a "useful member of society." A 3 year old has yet to learn that he/she is nothing and the hierarchy is all, that everything is external, that nobody cares what he/she thinks, that you have to do unto others before they do, unto you, that logic is God and, most importantly, that money talks and bs walks.
Lacking the things of adulthood, the 3 year old is more in touch with something else. That something else is SELF. The self that was, long before the creature and shall be, eternally. That something else, which I will call spirit, is the part of every person that refuses consideration with the finite thinking, that is all we have.
Just what is it about children - the younger the more - that causes everyone to gather around them? Some might say its instinctive behavior, like breeding itself; designed into us so that the race can continue. I'm sure that is part of it, but all? I think not.
It would seem to me that the "natural" creativity of which you spoke is one way of describing the issue, here; another being how people find being around children pleasant/desirable. There is something refreshing... and it almost seems to rub off, onto we sad adults...
This... tenuous and undefinable (via finite thought) THING... whatever it is, just might be manifested as beauty, as well, in a photo... more or less anywhere. We all understand that if you take the same thing and put it in different surroundings/contexts, it will look a little different.
CHOOSE YOUR TOOL:
If you want/need to make cold, carbon steel; if your goal is to operate a camera or any other thing rooted in the physical, and therefore the finite, logic rules.
If, OTOH, your goal is to create beauty, know, here and now, that logic will fail you, miserably. The rules of beauty defy description because description is done, via logic. People try anyway, of course. But how is it that I have seen image after booring image which follows all the rules but leaves me cold, and restless?
It might be that creative people are those that failed to get the child beaten out of them, as they grew...
Anyway, it would seem that this process (bad choice of words) in which we all participate is a duality, requiring components of the physical/logical realm and from the netherworld, which none understand.
However, I believe all duality is illusion, caused by my inability to combine what seems to be water, and oil. I am still getting that lesson, myself, and it looks like a long course so don't expect me to present it here!
It is/was nothing because you are not ready for it. When you mature to a point here you are able to step (mentally) outside your self; to adopt the thinking of another person, it will become something and, I submit, something well worth considering... as in understanding why it happened is the first step into assuring it does not happen, again.
But even the government has not done that. Brute force is all they know. They rule by crisis management - reacting to the symptoms, while ignoring the problems...
However, for those at the more rudimentary levels (to say the least!) I will state that I certainly do not condone what was done. I can't believe I have to say that...
All i've gotten out of this is:
world according to digital mage
:playball::whip::playball:
:meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh: :meh::meh:
:meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh: :meh::meh:
:meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::lol::meh: :meh::meh:
:meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh: :meh::meh:
:meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh::meh: :meh::meh:
Government is beating everyone down into mindless clones...
and he has lost his mind
Perfection... lol
Perfection is like tomorrow. Tomorrow never comes. It is always today. Tomorrow is but a concept; something to which we refer, knowing full well it is just an idea.
If you were perfect... you would know all and, therefore, you would no longer be able to learn. A bargain in which I, for one, would not care to participate! Something that is perfect, by definition, can not be improved. Without the prospect of progress, what is the point of existence?
And art... I ask again, is art doing it by the numbers... or the expression of the self?
And how can you criticise someone elses perception, the second poster's opinion your making an ad with all this, when you are so sure that nothing is sure?
Why?
Because the entire though process doesn't help you one dad-gum bit. There is no way that playing some intellectual word game will take somebody with limited creativity and turn him into Hieronymus Bosch or Salvador Dali.
You look at somebody like Joey Lawrence... most of us can't just download the Dragonizer plugin for Photoshop, consider our intellectual take on creativity, shoot a picture of some teen-wannabe model and end up with photos that blow everybody's mind... it just doesn't work like that.
I had to look that one up. If I have to learn a word a day, ... well, that was a great word for today! And I agree.
So when you say 'creative' with photography how is it truly creative? Is it different for the sake of it, or is there innovation? Then what is innovation? The digital age is innovation, the human creativity. When technology is used to its max and brings on a different form is innovation --the inventors being creative. This also occurs personally -learning how different apertures work is bringing innovation to one's photography and thus they are 'creative'.
To the OP, then how is your work wholly and unviersally creative, if it isn't innovative? Everyone here is expanding their talent and eye, being creative in their own ways--creating innovation for their own photography. That is the whole idea of improving. But to say that your transcended and creative beyond the rest is wrong. And that because you apply universal 'ifs' to anything doesn't make you a philosopher.
OR, to much acid back in the day.
I'm just wondering if people above were calling me a moron, or a troll. HAHA.
This Digital Mage character seems kind of whacked out. I mean, I know a lot of great minds seem whacked out...but...come on...
Love & Sturgeon
Love and fish?
Also takes a strong knowledge of self.
Love and Bass
I agree with this, as knowledge of self, and in this case self-creative processes, can go a long way.
Love and Bass
Indeed, everything IS perceptive. But is that the end of the discussion... or the beginning?
The end of the discussion might be something like this:
God gives us almost all Its power. We create the "world" in which we live; we own it, outright, and we are responsible for every single thing, in it. The fact that we did not create our world in the physical sense of the word matters not because we created it, just the same, when we decided how we perceive that world and, therefore, what the world is, to us.
Still... I have found the concept of "the end" to be false. There is always more... perhaps not right now, but...
So how does this rather ethereal manner of thinking relate to creativity... or even photography? I will say nothing :blushing: If you care to think about it you can figure it out, real quick, and if not, hey, that's fine with me - I gain/lose nothing, either way.
I think you're just spewing a bunch of concepts and confusing ideas but you're not really saying much of anything. And I think jsteudle below me is talking about this very thing. Digital Mage, you're trying to be a philosopher, or prophet, or something you're not now, nor ever will be. You're just spewing a bunch of nonsense in long strings of words and sentences that sound big, but are truly very small ideas. You're throwing up on your keyboard, trying to clean it off, and hitting keys. And those keystrokes are what we've been reading from you. You've got to chill out bud, nobody is taking you seriously. At least I'm not, and I'm the only one that counts.
WTF? I can't believe I wasted part of my life reading that BS. Thanks for nothing.
Since you showed the difference, i will agree completely that a true understanding of the knowledge you hold helps a lot when it comes it working on the more creative side of any art form. Without an understanding of what you learned, you have to agree you can not apply it to anything outside of the form you learned it in.
In math, we can all learn that 2+1 = 3, but without the understanding of addition how can we apply that knowledge to 3+1?
And you stated that in order to be creative you must have this understanding of the original knowledge, be it conscious or sub-conscious.
so therefore, going back to your original question, wouldn't one have to both withhold the understanding of the basics or the "numbers", and let it "all hang out" in order to be creative and do something outside of the norm?
--off topic--
I am taking a phil. class on proper arguing and todays chapter was about organizing the argument.. Found it kind of neat that i could put it into play at that last bit :-) hopefully i understood what i read and got it right
You need to have absolutely zero understanding of ANYTHING to be creative.
Some of the most creative people on the planet are 3 year olds. Perhaps they are not very good at expressing their creativity artistically due to a lack of fine motor skills and training (and the fact that their thumbs are sore from sucking them) but the certainly are quite creative.
Creativity is something we are born with, it is elemental... it exists within the human animal when we are born, and it flows from us throughout life without thought or reason... some more than others.
I love how The Digital Mage assumes my grasp of philosophy is minimal or rudimentary. I've read a lot of philosophy books in my spare time, and spend many hours discussing philosophical ideas with my brother (philosophy major). There's a difference between philosophy, and the stuff the OP is posting.
In fact, as far as I'm concerned, The Digital Mage does not exist, but rather, he is a creation of my mind. He is simply a piece of my mind that is there to give intelligence to the rest of my mind. He is simply nothing, and simply everything.
I just don't see what you're trying to accomplish The Digital Mage.
And I already know what I'm trying to accomplish by bashing on you in your thread, I'm trying to make me feel better about myself and hopefully entertain a few people in my bashing of you. Small-minded on my part? Perhaps. But I don't care.
Then again, how could I have expected this? HAHA. You guys are confusing me. Everything is perceptive, end of discussion.
Well, if this thread is not different - rofl!
Indeed, everything IS perceptive. But is that the end of the discussion... or the beginning?
The end of the discussion might be something like this:
God gives us almost all Its power. We create the "world" in which we live; we own it, outright, and we are responsible for every single thing, in it. The fact that we did not create our world in the physical sense of the word matters not because we created it, just the same, when we decided how we perceive that world and, therefore, what the world is, to us.
Still... I have found the concept of "the end" to be false. There is always more... perhaps not right now, but...
So how does this rather ethereal manner of thinking relate to creativity... or even photography? I will say nothing :blushing: If you care to think about it you can figure it out, real quick, and if not, hey, that's fine with me - I gain/lose nothing, either way.
lol - don't remember laying claim to the title of philosopher! Nor do I recall comparing myself to "the rest" - I would never think on that, most basic level.
Many have spoken of knowing; of knowledge. Knowledge is the first step, of two. Without the second, it is wasted.
I might read until I "know" that closing the lens will give me more and more depth of field but when I go too far, diffraction will begin to degrade my images. Then, with those things in mind, I might shoot for five years. After five years my experience will turn the knowledge into understanding.
Some of the very worst things that have ever happened have been the results of good intentions. Sometime in the late 40s or early 50s the army began to need people that were trained in technical matters. It was not long before they noticed they were having trouble getting people of the caliber necessary to understand those things. Their solution - which I call rote learning - has come very close to ruining, the modern world.
Someone began to DISCOURAGE thinking, as those they were training lacked the ability to think at a level, sufficient for the task at hand. They had a "check list;" some sort of truth table; a set of instructions that, when followed, would produce the desired result without the necessity of the person doing it understanding what he/she was doing.
Now that awful rote learning has literally taken the world, by storm. "We're not paying you to think!" You hear it again, and again. Stick to the formula... do it by the numbers... and if something goes wrong you will have the instructions, to blame.
I presume you shoot a lot of pics. I do. And I trash many of them. Of those I keep, most are ordinary; very few, are exceptional. Of course, I have done my level best to discover the "formula" for the way to make those very few. I have failed, miserably. I think you have, as well. If not, how is it that all your shots are not exceptional? rofl
But I have found that, in general, when I an "in the zone" and shooting hot I am NOT thinking - quite literally. I am allowing some sort of undefined... feeling to take over. I am thinking about the mechanical things involved in shooting, of course. But as for where I stand, how I frame the shots - the real deal - I am just letting it roll; along, for the ride.
"...on a trip, to cirrus minor, saw a crater, in the sun... a million miles, of blue-light laser..." (PINK FLOYD)
Sooo... maybe, for me, that's how I will define creativity... for now, anyway... until I can do better...
When my intellect steps aside and lets my soul, drive.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
